Hi Les,
The point I am trying to make is that the following in section 5.1 does not
make any sense to me anymore. And hence a per AF LFA knob too does not makes
sense.
"An implementation of LFA SHOULD allow its activation with the
following criteria:
o Per address-family : ipv4 unicast, ipv6 unicast, LDP IPv4 unicast,
LDP IPv6 unicast ..."
I have mentioned this to Stephane as well.
Why will a operator choose to not protect an entire AF (IPV4/IPV6) when normal
forwarding for both AF has been enabled. As long as a single AF is using
protection the same backup computations can be used for other AFs as well
without any extra cost. When operator is choosing protection only for sub-set
of prefixes, backup computations still needs to be done for entire topology
irrespective of the AF.
Thanks
-Pushpasis
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:12 PM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff
Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
Pushpassis -
Conceptually, there are two different functionalities being discussed:
1)Supporting selection of what prefixes are eligible for protection. This is
what Section 5.1 of the draft discusses.
2)For the set of prefixes which are eligible for protection, supporting policy
to choose between multiple LFA candidates. This is discussed in Section 5.2 of
the draft.
How you choose to implement this support is outside the scope of both the draft
and this discussion.
Les
From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:33 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Jeff Tantsura;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
abiloity to limit the set of prefixes m; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
Hi Les,
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:46 AM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff
Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
[Les:] "backup-selection-policy" specifies which member of an LFA set should be
preferred when there are multiple candidates for protecting a given prefix.
What we are discussing here is controlling which prefixes are eligible for
protection. These ae two different concepts.
[Pushpasis] Well, it is not only preferring. It can also be not-preferring-any
(or pruning). So if no protection for any IPv6 is required, it can be achieved
by a policy as belows:
Destination ipv6-all {
{
Interface all
{
Neighbor exclude all;
}
}
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
